The nation's 23rd census has concluded that the U.S. population stood at 308,745,538 on April 1 of this year, up 9.7% from 281,421,906 in the year 2000, the Census Bureau just announced.

- Census Director Robert Groves is asked whether the slow growth during the Great Depression years and the slow growth of the past decade (marked for the past two years by the so-called Great Recession) could both be attributed to the decades' economic woes. It's "an assertion on the part of historians" that population growth slowed in the 1930s because of the depression, Groves says. And "the case is pretty attractive to make that the depression hurt the growth rate." But, he says, "teasing out the effect" of the economy on population growth isn't easy and "we'll never be" sure how much the economic problems may have weighed on growth. It's worth noting, he adds, that "many developing countries" have seen their population growth slow in recent years.

- On citizenship: Census Director Robert Groves was just asked about whether the count includes non-citizens — or the "undocumented." "In every Census since 1790, we have counted all persons who live in the country," he says. "We count residents, whether they are citizens or not." So, the answer is yes.

- The rate of growth is the slowest since the Great Depression years (when the population grew 7.3%). Census Director Robert Groves says about 60% of the increase was "natural" — from births. The other 40%, he says, was from immigration. On apportionment in the House, Census says that based on the new population estimate:

- Eight states will gain members in the House. They are: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington. Ten states will lose members in the House. They are: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Hmm. Looks like the South is rising again, and the North is losing members.

nothing new, it's been a decades-long trend now.

although, the north isn't losing people in outright numbers (the northeast & midwest had growth percentages of 3.2%, and 3.9% respectively), they're just losing in terms of relative growth to the booming south and west (14.3% & 13.8% respectively).

What I find interesting is that the states in the Great Planes and Northern states in the middle of the country (Wyoming, Montana, Dakotas, etc) are gaining population at a pretty healthy rate. I thought the general trend was the emptying out of the middle states in favor of the coasts, but that just does not appear to be happening. The growth in the sunbelt is still alive and well though.

Ofcourse we still don't know where within those states the populations is shifting. To me, that is probably just as, if not more, relevant.

In terms of shifting the balance of power politically, you've got to remember that while these shifts mean that Republican states are gaining population and political clout, they're also becoming less Republican. The growth is coming from Northern transplants, immigrants, and minorities that lean Democratic.

So this trend only provides a tailwind for the GOP until the demographics reach the magical tipping point where the "newcomers" become a plurality, at which point these states will flip entirely. Look at Virginia and North Carolina in the last election... all that growth in NoVA and Charlotte looks like it helps the Repubs, but longer term, it doesn't really.

In terms of shifting the balance of power politically, you've got to remember that while these shifts mean that Republican states are gaining population and political clout, they're also becoming less Republican. The growth is coming from Northern transplants, immigrants, and minorities that lean Democratic.

So this trend only provides a tailwind for the GOP until the demographics reach the magical tipping point where the "newcomers" become a plurality, at which point these states will flip entirely. Look at Virginia and North Carolina in the last election... all that growth in NoVA and Charlotte looks like it helps the Repubs, but longer term, it doesn't really.

To some degree, sure. Many of these states currently are completely Republican-controlled at the state congress/governor level though, so you can bet that there will be some serious gerrymandering of any new/re-drawn districts to make sure that the effects of states becoming less Republican are minimized for years and years beyond what population shifts would indicate (Democrats do the same, of course).

In terms of shifting the balance of power politically, you've got to remember that while these shifts mean that Republican states are gaining population and political clout, they're also becoming less Republican. The growth is coming from Northern transplants, immigrants, and minorities that lean Democratic.

And the commentators are misinterpreting the political realignment happening in the "net loss" states.

Take NY State. Its losses will mean severe reapportionment in Upstate NY, which is the most Conservative and Republican part of the state. The reapportionment won't do anything to NYC's Congressional Representation.

Reapportionment happens according to an individual state's growth patterns. If one area is growing, and the other declining, the declining area will be combined, and the growing area untouched or only slightly modified.

So it is only true that these House seat losses mean a more Conservative Congress if the areas with the slowest growth happen to be Democrat-leaning. I'm not so sure this is true.

at the congressional representative level, the reapportionment probably won't be as earth shattering as some would have you believe, because as you guys said, trading 2 GOP reps from NY and 1 from IL for 3 new GOP reps in texas isn't a net gain for the GOP, they're just moving the states they're coming from.

but moving 10 reps overall from the north to the south (and the conservative interior west) could have implications in the electoral college for the next presidential election if it's a close one.

Other than the ever present redistricting shenanigans, the net effect on the House should theoretically be zero. People moving around the country doesn't impact the total number of Republican and Democratic voters, and if, say, Upstate New York loses people but metro Atlanta gains people, it's not an advantage to the GOP.

Where it matters is in the Electoral College. But as I said, that's only true until the Northeast/Midwest migration to the Sunbelt reaches critical mass, at which point traditionally Republican states become moderate or Democratic, and the GOP is worse off than it was in the 1980s.

The 2000-2010 Census numbers were interesting, but I wanted to go back in and break it down to the last year of growth to see how recent economic changes have affected growth rates. Here are the states (and DC) ranked by Growth Rate and Numeric Growth for the period from July 1, 2009 estimates to April 1, 2010 Census counts. I would imagine this gives a lot of insight into what has happened as a result of the recession? Or, does this just reflect inaccuracies of the Census estimates being corrected?

Even at the national level it won't be that hard for the Democrats to retain their strongholds and win a few battleground states.

For example, the Northeast including D.C., Maryland and Delaware has 112 electoral votes. The Upper Midwest (Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois) add 62 more votes and the West Coast (California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii) add another 78. That's 252 votes that will likely go in favor of Obama, though there's always the possibilities of a few switches (Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, etc.)

If Obama can keep Florida then he has more than enough and in fact could lose New Hampshire and Iowa and still win. If he keeps the 252 votes in the likely states and also keeps Ohio then he has exactly enough. If he loses both Ohio and Florida he can take Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico and win. And that doesn't even take into consideration Virginia, which has increasingly become more liberal. He can add Virginia and any one of the Mountain West states and still win.

What I find interesting is that the states in the Great Planes and Northern states in the middle of the country (Wyoming, Montana, Dakotas, etc) are gaining population at a pretty healthy rate. I thought the general trend was the emptying out of the middle states in favor of the coasts, but that just does not appear to be happening. The growth in the sunbelt is still alive and well though.

Yes this is so true. Here's a population chart of Oklahoma's population from 2000-2010. It portrays exactly what you have said; this Great Plain states are growing at a healthy clip. The most recent year suggests Oklahoma is about to start adding some hefty numbers to it's population. I suspect within Oklahoma, the overwhelming majority of the growth will be within the two urban areas, Oklahoma City and Tulsa.